Lust Conquers All; the Manosphere For Newcomers

With any luck, the election shenanigans have broken a few more people loose from the zeitgeist, but I suspect most guys who come to the Red Pill do so the old-fashioned way, by thinking with their dicks. Which is awesome, healthy and nearly impossible to thwart, as this poor male feminist demonstrates:

Do men really hate women?

h ttps://

By James Bloodworth, 15 October 2020

No. In fact, men are hardwired to need sex and like women. When you find a man who genuinely wants nothing to do with women under any circumstances, you have found a man severely damaged by a man-hating society. He’s had his natural instincts beaten or twisted clean out of him. He didn’t wake up and decide “womyn sux” apropos of nothing or to fit in with the cool kids.

But that’s just my answer. Let’s hear James’.

Feminism is frequently described as arriving in “waves”. With each successive wave comes an embittered backlash. There was still a strong stigma attached to women giving birth out of wedlock when I was born to a single mother in the 1980s. A few years later, when I started school, my mum lost out on a promotion at work to a man who was significantly less qualified than her for the role.

Vastly more likely: his mother with her “I gotta be there for my kid” attitude couldn’t make the time commitment that the promotion required. Blah blah qualifications but if one candidate can promise he’ll show up every day and the other one can’t then guess who is more valuable to the company?

I could go a step further and bet that the qualification in question was an academic credential not actual work experience, but we’ll never know.

Yet even back then there were audible rumblings of discontent from men who believed that feminism had “gone too far”. Shortly after my mum had been stitched up at work (an experience depressingly common to many women) the men’s rights activist Warren Farrell published The Myth of Male Power (1993), in which he argued that men — not women — were being systematically disadvantaged by a female-centric conspiracy.

James is personalizing a culture-wide trend. He is taking the “men are the real victims” general statement and comparing it unfavorably to what his single mother taught him to believe. “It cannot be true if it isn’t true for me specifically” is an excellent example of solipsism.

James, your mother deserved to live in poverty because she chose to raise you herself, without a father, knowing she didn’t have the money or time to be both a mother and a breadwinner. Actions have consequences and most of feminism is avoiding the natural consequences of matriarchy.

In her latest book, Men Who Hate Women, the feminist writer Laura Bates…

She could have been pretty but now, her hair is going premature Bag Lady Grey.

…has delved into the stomping grounds of the latest backlash, immersing herself in the manosphere, an internet subculture where “the hatred of women is actively encouraged, with sprawling, purpose-built communities of men dedicated to fuelling and inflaming the cause”.

Are we sure the title shouldn’t have been “Women Who Hate Men?” And have women done anything that might justify men having such an attitude?

The manosphere is made up of pickup artists (PUAs), involuntary celibates (incels), men’s rights activists as well as “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW). PUAs try to lure women into bed with tactics and manipulation, whereas incels blame women’s sexual liberation for their failure to find a partner. Men’s rights activists express what Bates calls a “nostalgic yearning for ancient societal rules and stereotypes”, while MGTOW aim to live their lives free from female contact, though whether this is a conscious choice on the part of the men involved is a matter for debate. According to Bates, these movements form “an interconnected spectrum of different but related groups, each with their own rigid belief systems, lexicons and forms of indoctrination”.

No surprise that Bates will be last to admit what women have done to bring this about. Let me break down the Manosphere for a new generation:

PUAs are the men still actively trying to have sex with women. Many of them would do monogamous marriage if it was still a thing but because it isn’t, well, the itch has no off switch.

Incels are the men realizing they’ll never be able to act safely or consistently upon their natural instincts. They’re the ones most angry at women because 1. they haven’t yet given up and 2. they correctly realize that the problem is the women.

MGTOWs are the men who give up. No more anger, only indifference, but feminists claim we’re angry because their brains can’t handle the concept of male indifference. For some MGTOWs it’s an intentional decision, for others it’s simply the realization that tempus fugit.

So, she’s right that the Manosphere is an interconnected spectrum of related groups but there’s no beliefs or indoctrination. It’s just the male sex drive: Want it, Need It and Ain’t Gonna Happen.

Incel forums drip with misogyny [meaning Elliot Rodger of PUAhate specifically and exclusively]…

Pro-tip, anybody who equates Elliot Rodger to the Incel community can be safely ignored.

…and Bates provides copious examples: women are blamed for denying men sex while threads speculate on “the mandated redistribution of sex, the keeping of women as sex slaves or the widespread massacre of women and girls”. Furthermore, Bates takes aim at conservative commentators such as the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat for indulging the incel narrative: Douthat has speculated about a potential “redistribution of sex”.

When even the NY Times editors wonder if you’re too far Leftist, it’s time to sit down and listen to your critics.

Bates has been sexually assaulted in the past and she relays in horrific detail how she has been subjected to a daily barrage of hate mail (including threats of rape and murder) from enraged men aggrieved at her feminist activism. “For nearly a decade, men have sent me daily messages, often in their hundreds, outlining their hatred of me, fantasising about my brutal rape and murder, detailing which weapons they would use to slice my body open and disembowel,” she writes.

She lied. UK police would eat that raw and/or she wouldn’t still be on social media.

Why, Bates asks, are these men so angry? Partly because we are living through yet another anti-feminist backlash. Manosphere communities assiduously peddle the myth of the bogus rape allegation —when in reality the average adult man in England and Wales has just a 0.0002 per cent chance of being falsely accused of rape in a year. Moreover, many men resent women’s sexual freedom as well as the entrance of women into the labour force.

That’s 1 in 500,000. Current UK population, 68 million, so 35 million men… James claims there are only seventy PROVEN false rapes accusations per year. That sounds high, actually. This being UK, even true rapes are often not reported. It would cause badthink towards their New Musloid Citizens!

Bates has visited British schools nearly every week since founding the Everyday Sexism Project in 2012, and rather disconcertingly has noticed of late that some boys have begun to espouse Red Pill ideas gleaned from the manosphere.

Would that be because Adolf Hitler lured them into a panel van, or because they’re newly interested in how women work and the Manosphere is their only option for learning?

Can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere. And i go everywhere - Mr Universe ...

Even the communities that make up the manosphere appear to have grown more extreme in recent years. There was always a dark side to the “seduction community”. It came marinated in assumptions that women were overly emotional and naturally duplicitous.

If that wasn’t true then why would women care? If somebody accused me of being emotional then I’d probably ignore him.

But geeky men venturing out onto Sunset Boulevard in top hats and feather boas (peacocking) with pocketbooks full of canned conversation starters — “Who lies more, men or women?” — seems quaint compared to what came later. Today the pickup community is marinated in Red Pill ideology, partly as a result of YouTube and its polarising algorithm. In the years after The Game was published,

YouBoob putting its multi-billion-dollar fat thumb on the scales of Internet discourse proves us right. “You’re wrong but we still don’t want anybody to notice you because… shut up.”

Erik Von Markovic (AKA Mystery) with his cheesy magic tricks was replaced by characters like Roosh V (real name Daryush Valizadeh) who writes that “My default opinion of any girl I meet is ‘worthless dirty whore until proven otherwise’”.

Doxxer-come-lately should have a look at where Roosh V is right now. The truth about women leads into the truth about Christianity. Turns out that God the FATHER wasn’t just a job title.

Similarly, it is important to ask why young men are being drawn to incel ideology.

Frustrated hormones.

The internet is one reason…

Yeah, because hormones…

…aren’t often seen at the grocery store these days. H/T Kentucky Head Hunter.

…as is the lingering societal assumption that men have a God-given right to sex.

Men have a God-given NEED for sex. But James is still right if he means husbands.

Yet paradoxically for someone of the Left, Bates echoes uncompromising War on Terror rhetoric when she writes about incel radicalisation. “I am not particularly interested in a ‘redemptive’ narrative for incels,” Bates writes. “What incel beliefs… are actually about is terrorism”.

Good call, James. But that’s “hypocritically”, not “paradoxically”. Terrorism is the tool of Socialists and tyrants, not men inconvenienced by virginity.

But surely it’s pertinent to ask why there has been a rapid rise in the number of angry, sexless men in the early twenty-first century?

Since 2008 the number of American men under 30 reporting no sex has nearly tripled. Bates makes no mention of this, nor of the increasingly winner-takes-all sexual marketplace generated by the retreat of monogamous norms and an increasingly polygynous, app-dominated hookup culture. While it’s important not to slip into victim-blaming rhetoric that sees the problem as women’s sexual freedom, the challenges facing unattractive, low-status men seem hardly to register on Bates’s radar.

As I said at the very beginning of this, the Manosphere exists because men… all men… including JAMES, heh heh… need sex. He was indoctrinated feminist by a single mother, then indoctrinated again in college, then indoctrinated again as a journalist… but the male sex drive can bust through feminist lies like nothing else.

Similarly, there is little examination of what drew men to the ‘seduction community’ in its heyday. Misogynists who wished to assert tyrannical power over women were certainly ubiquitous in the genre, as Bates makes clear. “Instead of being open to women’s feelings and needs, acolytes are taught to ignore and deny them,” she writes.

That’s his feminist mother talking. This is an experiment that the early Manosphere guys ran. They tried being nice to women and they tried being jerks to women, and then they compared notes.

Spoiler: Chicks dig jerks.

The manosphere encourages men to be uncompromising emotional robots. As Bates convincingly demonstrates, this is immensely damaging to women.

Hahaha! “Men refuse to act normal… women most affected!”

It also produces emotionally stunted men. “When feminists talk about ‘toxic masculinity’ we mean the enormous potential damage posed by an outdated version of what it means to be a man,” writes Bates. Those attempting to reanimate a rigid, dogmatic version of manhood for the 21st century confuse force with strength.

Toxic masculinity is the idea that a woman’s place is at her husband’s feet. The very purpose of feminism is woman ruling over men, or as we Christians call it, Original Sin. The servant rebelling against her God-ordained master.

Yet Bates seems to approach the topic of masculinity from an assumption that gender is entirely socially constructed. I’m not sure this — sometimes referred to as the blank slate — is helpful. Bewilderingly, she lists “strength”, “physical prowess” and the pursuit of “money and status” as examples of “toxic masculinity”.

As any red-blooded young man knows, gender is not a social construct because testosterone doesn’t have an off switch.

There are certainly toxic incarnations of all of the above. However, it seems unlikely that men try to cultivate athletic physiques and pursue power and status entirely as a result of brainwashing by western capitalist patriarchy. Every man from high school age up knows that masculine, high-status men receive the greater share of attention from women. Moreover, outside of the rarefied ideological bubble of the social sciences it is widely accepted that this is partly a product of millions of years of evolution and sexual selection.

Humans are a created species but regardless, James is right to notice that feminists are pushing something that did not exist before feminism and is not natural.

Harmful gender stereotypes abound and it is important to combat them. But assuming masculinity will fade away — to be replaced by some genderless utopia — is no more plausible than the Marxist belief that greed and avarice will vanish once the state takes over the means of production. It simply flies in the face of masses of empirical, cross-cultural evidence. Perhaps more pertinently, it also contradicts the lived experience of the majority of men, which in turn helps fuel the resentful grievances of the manosphere.

Poor James is buried in a web of lies dating back to a single-mother family. But he made it this far, to notice that what feminism teaches is not natural and what women say is not what women want. If he goes one more step, he’ll recognize that there are healthy gender stereotypes as well as unhealthy ones, and the feminists hate hate HATE the healthy. If he goes two more steps then he’ll notice that how women relate to men is how humanity relates to God.

And so the underlying order of the cosmos is discovered, that men should have dicks and women should serve them. For the women who do, they actually have a lot of fun. For the women who don’t, we have gender stereotypes like “spinster” and “crazy cat lady” and “feminist”.

They hurt because they’re true.

11 thoughts on “Lust Conquers All; the Manosphere For Newcomers

  1. This is a fantastic post. However, I have a couple quibbles.

    First, men’s sex drive is the most urgent and compelling factor, especially for younger men. But it is not the only factor. Men are also wired with a drive/desire to have a satisfying marriage (for sex, yes, but not only for the sex), and children. Overall, men want to establish a domain of authority within his sphere of influence. I believe it is God’s will that marriage, family, and work should remain unfettered, viable options for men. (Especially marriage, because male thirst renders the option of celibacy too much of a burden and temptation, and illicit sex destroys not only the soul, but also society. I believe this offers a justifying moral force behind the demands of the Manosphere.) But Feminism has revoked the possibility for the average man to establish an authoritative domain within these enterprises.


    “…the average adult man in England and Wales has just a 0.0002 per cent chance of being falsely accused of rape in a year.”
    “That’s 1 in 500,000. Current UK population, 68 million, so 35 million men… James claims there are only seventy PROVEN false rapes accusations per year.”

    Your calculation of 35 million is off, or maybe you are employing hyperbole. I calculated 136 from that figure, which is still far too high.

    However, we should not accept the statistics cited as being correct without verifying it to be true.

    From my own brief search and rudimentary calculations, I found that the number of false rape accusations are 3-4%, and 6-10% of the number of rape accusations, in the UK and the US, respectively.
    In 2012/13 there were 3,692 prosecutions for rape in England and Wales, resulting in 2,333 convictions. That is an average of 1,846 a year. 4% of that is 74, which is 0.00011% of a population of 68 million. This is almost half of the statistic cited by James and Bates (and Gunner Q).

    It is interesting to note that 74 is very close to the number of women prosecuted for using false claims of rape to pervert justice. Most of these women get long sentences.

    So based on this cursory study, it seems that (at least in the UK) women are routinely punished for making false rape accusations, at least for those which enter a court of law.

    The thing is, and this is men’s primary complaint, is that a rape accusation doesn’t need to formally go to court for it to be damaging.

    I might speculate that women’s unspoken complaint is that they cannot use accusations of false rape (or the feminist concept of rape) as freely as they would like, as a tool to control or get revenge on men, without suffering personal consequences, which is enough for them to cry about it. I believe this is why the #metoo debacle was so popular for a time, and also why it failed.


    Liked by 2 people

  2. Nice breakdown of it which I did hot have the time to do. I included it in the links because the writer has the potential to cross to the dark side if he can break through his own conditioning. In a way, the article that he wrote is an unconscious essay on that theme.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. This —

    ‘The truth about women leads into the truth about Christianity. Turns out that God the FATHER wasn’t just a job title.’

    and this —

    ‘Toxic masculinity is the idea that a woman’s place is at her husband’s feet. The very purpose of feminism is woman ruling over men, or as we Christians call it, Original Sin. The servant rebelling against her God-ordained master.’

    is what it’s all about.

    Under influence of angelic powers, the woman sought to overturn the divine hierarchic order and be equal with God the FATHER, and thus to be controller over the man. This is the flaw — desire for power and control — exposed by her free will. Nothing has changed since.

    The man, quickly enraptured by the women he was given, and overcome by his sexual urges towards her, follows and obeys her instead of following and obeying God. This is the flaw exposed by his free will. Nothing has changed since.

    The submission of the man and rebellion of the woman altered the human future, and changed the planet from a joyous and corruption-free paradise to the predatory and pustulent horror it has been ever since. Not only for people but for all creatures and things. Death arrived, holding the planetary deed that had transferred from the man to satan, via collusion of the woman.

    King Jeshua lived and died to jumpstart the restoration project of humanity begun by the OT Hebrew prophets, by re-connecting the man again with his Father in heaven, thus returning the man’s place, authority, and inheritance to him, in spiritual principle. For Jeshua lived not as God nor as angel, but as a man. Lucifer and the fallen principalities ruling this planet unleashed every malevolence and trick in the book since, in attempt to maintain power over humanity and the Earth.

    Feminist rebellion isn’t new, it’s the oldest evil in the world, along with man’s willing subjugation to it. No need for the powers and principalities to think up something novel — they just tweak and perfect the methods and motivations already long established in the race: across the centuries, encourage the woman to further power-seeking and rebellion, and encourage the man to further subjugation beneath the woman. Because patriarchal oppression! We now see the final fruits of this inversion, everywhere, as we witness the ascent of satan and rise of the global beast-systems. A beast ridden by a woman.

    There is a reason the hub of American Empire is named after the goddess Columbia. Indeed, not only the States but the nations are her District. There is a reason the national icon is a gigantic goddess on a pedestal, holding a torch of occult illumination, with a book of her ‘laws’ in the other hand.

    Columbia gave birth to two children. The first was called Mason and the second was named Christian. We are taught the history of Christian, from the Puritans and Pilgrims onward, but we are not taught the history of Mason, who put down roots on the Seaboard long before the Mayflower arrived. And as is easily observable, it is Mason who rules Columbia’s nation. Not Christian.

    To speak and understand the truth about female nature and tactics, as Gunner Q points out, leads the strong inevitably to the Truth that is Christ. The world hates that because the world is under the power of satan and his structures. He can only rule as long as the woman rules. The more the woman rules, the more he consolidates power and dominates humanity through her. Think Safety Lockdown.

    My interest is preparing the ground, straightening the highway, for the Parousia and subsequent restoration of the original hierarchic order as created by God. The lock to Eden can only be opened by the key that closed it. Man must refuse submission to the woman/world, and re-establish his relationship with Father, now available again via the mediation of Christ. Then he is worthy again of a world under his authority, instead of his present position as lackey on Maggie’s Farm, well-paid or not.

    Where we are at right now is Malachi 4:6. If our counsel rejecting our feminist nations and demanding instead restoration of dad and son/family continues to be refused and loathed, Ms. Columbia will get stomped by the King. Any other nation that partakes will get the same treatment.

    From long before its official founding, Columbia/America was planned as a nation dedicated to Lucifer, by tool of the empowered woman, with ultimate goal of globalization and human enslavement. As always, the sorcery is effected via manipulation of the specific primal faults of the man and woman.

    The Christians would be worn down and eventually the gynarchy would rise and be installed, as planned. The blood-sacrificial/fertility Old Religions again would rule overtly, of octate-limited year-kings (presidents) and the goddesses they serve. (See the Old Testament and ‘The Golden Bough’). Equally instructive is the ‘Apotheosis of George Washington’, highest point of the inner rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building. The nation’s founding leader, its image of masculine power and authority, is surrounded by an inner-circle of goddesses. Instead of fierce warrior-men, the presidents leading America are surrounded and bounded by empowered women, up in mid-air where satan is prince (Ephesians 2:2). Thus blotting-out and inverting Christ surrounded by His apostles.

    The established powers of the world, both angelic and human, don’t want the overthrow of feminism and the restoration of dad and son — Father and Son — and they resist the exposure and razing of their false rule with all their might. Current events in the U.S. illustrate this aptly. Modern America is what a Feminist Nation looks like.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: 10 November 2020 – Dark Brightness

  5. Hello! Sorry that this response is a little late, but I just saw your response (was going through my conversations).

    I hope to continue to see wonderful things from you, Gunner Q. Please, keep up the amazing work.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s